Compare AWS WAF vs. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway
AWS WAF is ranked 8th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 7 reviews while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 16th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 1 review. AWS WAF is rated 7.8, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of AWS WAF writes "Makes sure files are protected, but the solution should be more proactive in detecting threats". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway writes "An excellent gateway solution with good control capabilities and great stability". AWS WAF is most compared with Akamai Kona, Imperva Incapsula and F5 BIG-IP, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with F5 BIG-IP, NGINX Web Application Firewall and Imperva Incapsula.
 |
Most Helpful Review | |||
| Use Microsoft Azure Application Gateway? Share your opinion. | ||
 Find out what your peers are saying about F5, Imperva, Cloudflare and others in Web Application Firewall (WAF). Updated: October 2019. 377,556 professionals have used our research since 2012. | |||
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros | |
The ability to take multiple data sets and match those data sets together is the solution's most valuable feature. The data lake that comes with it is very useful because that allows us to match data sets with different configurations that we wouldn't normally be able to match. The initial setup was very straightforward. Deployment took about ten minutes or less. The customized billing is the most valuable feature. It is a one-click WAF with no effort needed. It is Amazon. Everything is scalable. It is beyond what we need. It's simple, easy to use. The most valuable feature is the way it blocks threats to external applications. The most valuable feature is the security, making sure that files are protected, preventing unauthorized users from accessing the system. | We chose this solution in the first place because it has access to Layer 7. I can control the requests and the content, which I can access on my network if I want to even if it's forbidden access to other external resources. If I want to monitor, for example, traffic, and apply this rule on Layer 7, I can do so. This was our main goal when implementing this application. We wanted to take advantage of the Gateway capabilities. |
Cons | |
The solution is cloud-based, and therefore the billing model that comes with it could be more intuitive, in my opinion. It's very easy to not fully understand how you tag things for billing and then you can quite easily run up a high bill without realizing it. The solution needs to be more intuitive around the tagging system, which enables the billing. Right now, I have a cloud architect that does that on our behalf and it isn't something that a business user could use because it still requires quite a lot of technical knowledge to do effectively. They should work to define more threats, add more security, and make it more compliant with more security companies. In a future release of this solution, I would like to see additional management features to make things simpler. We need more support as we go global. The user experience, the interface, is lacking. Sometimes it's hard to find certain areas that it has alerted on. In a future release I would like to see automation. There's no interaction between the applications and that makes it tedious. We have to do the preparation all over again for each of our other applications. They have to do more to improve, to innovate more features. They need to increase the security. It has to be more active in detecting threats. | The pricing of the solution is a bit high. The solution should offer different pricing systems. |
Pricing and Cost Advice | |
There are different scale options available for WAF. There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees. It's an annual subscription. | Information Not Available |
 Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs. 377,556 professionals have used our research since 2012. | |
Ranking  | |
Views 2,739 Comparisons 2,161 Reviews 7 Average Words per Review 377 Avg. Rating 7.9 | Views 2,269 Comparisons 2,008 Reviews 1 Average Words per Review 372 Avg. Rating 8.0 |
Top Comparisons | |
 Compared 18% of the time.  Compared 16% of the time.  Compared 12% of the time. | Compared 13% of the time. Compared 11% of the time. Compared 9% of the time. |
Also Known As | |
| AWS Web Application Firewall | Azure Application Gateway |
Learn | |
| Amazon Video Not Available | Microsoft |
Overview | |
AWS WAF is a web application firewall that helps protect your web applications from common web exploits that could affect application availability, compromise security, or consume excessive resources. AWS WAF gives you control over which traffic to allow or block to your web applications by defining customizable web security rules. You can use AWS WAF to create custom rules that block common attack patterns, such as SQL injection or cross-site scripting, and rules that are designed for your specific application. New rules can be deployed within minutes, letting you respond quickly to changing traffic patterns. Also, AWS WAF includes a full-featured API that you can use to automate the creation, deployment, and maintenance of web security rules. | Azure Application Gateway is a web traffic load balancer that enables you to manage traffic to your web applications. Traditional load balancers operate at the transport layer (OSI layer 4 - TCP and UDP) and route traffic based on source IP address and port, to a destination IP address and port. |
Offer | |
Learn more about AWS WAF | Learn more about Microsoft Azure Application Gateway |
Sample Customers | |
| eVitamins, 9Splay, Senao International | Lilly, AccuWeather, AIRFRANCE, Honeywell, |
Top Industries | |
Software R&D Company37% Comms Service Provider16% Media Company14% Retailer11% | Software R&D Company41% Media Company10% Government9% Comms Service Provider8% |
Find out what your peers are saying about F5, Imperva, Cloudflare and others in Web Application Firewall (WAF). Updated: October 2019.
377,556 professionals have used our research since 2012.
See also AWS WAF Reviews, Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Reviews, and our list of Best Web Application Firewall (WAF) Companies.
We monitor all Web Application Firewall (WAF) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post
reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference
with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
Sign in to see all reviews and comparisons. It's free!
By clicking Sign in with LinkedIn™ you agree to let IT Central Station use your LinkedIn profile
and email address in accordance with our Privacy Policy and agree to the Terms of Service.
- Unlimited access to 30000+ reviews from real users
- Your own page to promote your professional skills
- Join a community of experts to call upon for support
Already a member? Sign in.
By registering, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
- Unlimited access to 30000+ reviews from real users
- Your own page to promote your professional skills
- Join a community of experts to call upon for support
Already a member? Sign In.